Who the hell does Rand Paul think he is trying to prevent Obama from attacking Iran if he wants to?

Presidents of both parties, over the past several decades, have shown a willingness to interpret Senate resolutions in the broadest imaginable way when it comes to war, whether it's to launch a 10-year land-war in Southeast Asia or Afghanistan, to torture detainees picked up in foreign countries or to eavesdrop without a warrant on American citizens. This time around, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) wants to make sure there are no misunderstandings.
The Senate is debating legislation that would impose strict sanctions on Iran, including penalizing U.S. companies whose subsidiaries have ties to the country.
The bill, S. Res. 380, would not explicitly allow war with Iran. But Paul, who has been a critic of U.S. involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan, doesn't want to take any chances. His amendment would make clear that nothing in the bill "shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of use of force against Iran or Syria."
A single senator can wield serious influence in the Senate simply by refusing to go along, and Paul is willing to use it. In late March, Paul blocked the bipartisan Iran sanctions bill from coming to a vote, demanding consideration of his amendment. The House has already approved a version of the legislation. Moving forward would require coming to an agreement with Paul so that he lifts his objection, or getting 60 votes to bypass him, which would chew up several days of limited Senate floor time.
So far, only one Democrat, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), has expressed interest in signing on as a cosponsor.

Who the hell does Rand Paul think he is trying to prevent Obama from attacking Iran if he wants to?

Presidents of both parties, over the past several decades, have shown a willingness to interpret Senate resolutions in the broadest imaginable way when it comes to war, whether it's to launch a 10-year land-war in Southeast Asia or Afghanistan, to torture detainees picked up in foreign countries or to eavesdrop without a warrant on American citizens. This time around, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) wants to make sure there are no misunderstandings.
The Senate is debating legislation that would impose strict sanctions on Iran, including penalizing U.S. companies whose subsidiaries have ties to the country.
The bill, S. Res. 380, would not explicitly allow war with Iran. But Paul, who has been a critic of U.S. involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan, doesn't want to take any chances. His amendment would make clear that nothing in the bill "shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of use of force against Iran or Syria."
A single senator can wield serious influence in the Senate simply by refusing to go along, and Paul is willing to use it. In late March, Paul blocked the bipartisan Iran sanctions bill from coming to a vote, demanding consideration of his amendment. The House has already approved a version of the legislation. Moving forward would require coming to an agreement with Paul so that he lifts his objection, or getting 60 votes to bypass him, which would chew up several days of limited Senate floor time.
So far, only one Democrat, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), has expressed interest in signing on as a cosponsor.

Who the hell does Rand Paul think he is trying to prevent Obama from attacking Iran if he wants to?

Presidents of both parties, over the past several decades, have shown a willingness to interpret Senate resolutions in the broadest imaginable way when it comes to war, whether it's to launch a 10-year land-war in Southeast Asia or Afghanistan, to torture detainees picked up in foreign countries or to eavesdrop without a warrant on American citizens. This time around, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) wants to make sure there are no misunderstandings.
The Senate is debating legislation that would impose strict sanctions on Iran, including penalizing U.S. companies whose subsidiaries have ties to the country.
The bill, S. Res. 380, would not explicitly allow war with Iran. But Paul, who has been a critic of U.S. involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan, doesn't want to take any chances. His amendment would make clear that nothing in the bill "shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of use of force against Iran or Syria."
A single senator can wield serious influence in the Senate simply by refusing to go along, and Paul is willing to use it. In late March, Paul blocked the bipartisan Iran sanctions bill from coming to a vote, demanding consideration of his amendment. The House has already approved a version of the legislation. Moving forward would require coming to an agreement with Paul so that he lifts his objection, or getting 60 votes to bypass him, which would chew up several days of limited Senate floor time.
So far, only one Democrat, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), has expressed interest in signing on as a cosponsor.

the bill would punish any company that does or owns smaller companies, that do business with Iran.

That's vague.

If a company bought an iranian product from china, could that be breaking the law? The way dems hate freedom, commerce, and business, I'd say they would go that far.

As far as adding to a bill that garuntees no war, that's just press grabbing. Nothing can stop the Pres from killing people anywhere. We have more, sadly more, than enough history of ignoring the need for a proper declaration.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!